Find Nearby Plumbers In Torrance, California

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Torrance has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Sergio, Jeff, Joey, Jerreme, and Mike — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 15–18 out of 175) describes serious failures including no-shows, broken promises on scheduling, abandoned jobs, dishonest pricing, and at least one instance of a technician leaving a property unsecured and using substandard parts. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers flagged costs as high or above market rate, one reviewer alleged price gouging, and one described a potential bait-and-switch tactic. Project completion scores are dragged down by documented cases of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and at least two instances where the drain issue was not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good overall, with most technicians demonstrating solid knowledge, but offset by at least two reviews citing incompetent or inexperienced technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — 'George was Very thorough and efficient...' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02, and the stove/gas valve review appears on both 2025-06-04 and 2025-06-01. These are likely duplicate submissions and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-07 00:00:00' (approximately 25+ reviews) share an identical timestamp, which is highly unusual and may indicate bulk-imported or artificially submitted reviews. These reviews vary in content but the identical date is a red flag. Confidence in the aggregate score is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 distinct reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to show up within promised windows, calls going unreturned, or appointments being missed entirely. This is a recurring operational issue that meaningfully impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers described pricing as above market rate, one alleged being charged triple fair value ($14,500 job), one described a coupon not being honored, and one described being quoted $225 for a job typically priced under $100. These are not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, a job where the technician left without explanation, and one case where a promised follow-up quote was never delivered over a two-week period.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2019–2025. Reviews from 2019–2021 are given reduced weight relative to 2023–2025 reviews. The negative patterns (no-shows, pricing complaints) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting they are not isolated to a specific era.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, ~140 with usable text) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious cluster of same-date reviews, and a consistent pattern of serious service failures that coexist alongside many genuinely positive experiences.

RF Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project follow-through across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising Dominic and other technicians for diagnosing difficult problems, completing jobs same-day, and going above and beyond. Professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by one severe and credible review alleging violent threats from an office representative, as well as a pattern of multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging and feeling taken advantage of on pricing. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with at least four separate reviewers explicitly calling out inflated or unfair charges, one citing prices triple that of competitors, and one noting a mid-job price bump after a no-show. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by one documented no-show and a rescheduling incident. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine skill and many satisfied customers, but with a serious and recurring pattern of pricing complaints and one alarming conduct allegation that cannot be ignored.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2023-05-17) filed a sheriff's report alleging explicit threats of physical violence from an office representative after the customer mentioned leaving a negative review. This is an extraordinary allegation and, if accurate, represents a significant safety and business ethics concern.
• PRICING PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviewers across different years (2016, 2021, 2021, 2023) explicitly complained about overcharging, inflated prices, or feeling taken advantage of. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• INTIMIDATION CONCERN: The 2023 threat review and the 2021 reviewer who felt 'uncomfortable after giving feedback to the owner' suggest a possible pattern of hostile responses to customer complaints, which may suppress legitimate negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews (violent threats, overcharging complaints) are concentrated in 2021–2023, suggesting the pricing and conduct issues may be worsening or ongoing rather than historical. Positive reviews span 2015–2023 but many are older than 12 months.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: The majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic praise, but the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and incident descriptions lends those negative reviews disproportionate weight under conservative scoring rules.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG TRIGGERED: Reviews appear largely authentic — they contain specific names, job details, dollar amounts, and varied writing styles. No mass fabrication pattern detected, though the high ratio of 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews with a high volume of usable data across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of a credible violent-threat allegation and a recurring independent pricing complaint pattern introduce qualitative risk factors that the numerical score alone does not fully capture, and prospective customers should read the negative reviews in full before hiring.

Good Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion (missed appointments, incomplete callbacks, follow-up failures) and pricing concerns. Multiple customers report being overcharged, receiving inflated estimates, or experiencing aggressive upselling tactics. While recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with communication, reliability, and fair pricing that persist across years. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with solid technical capability undermined by operational and ethical inconsistencies.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2025-06-02, 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10) describe aggressive upselling, inflated estimates, and misrepresentation of customer needs. One customer reported a $3,000 estimate for a $200 fix; another was quoted $1,057 for a 10-minute faucet repair. Pattern suggests potential systemic overcharging.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, incomplete callbacks, and abandoned work across multiple years (2019, 2011, 2008). Several customers report scheduling issues, failure to follow up on promised work, and incomplete repairs requiring second visits.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWNS: Consistent complaints about poor follow-up, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and miscommunication regarding appointment times and job scope. Some reviews from 2008-2011 show similar patterns to recent complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with older reviews that contain specific complaints. While some recent reviews show legitimate detail, the concentration of generic praise warrants caution. However, insufficient evidence of coordinated fake reviews—variation in language and specific technician names suggests authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Performance varies significantly by individual plumber. Some technicians (Chip, Bryan C., Jose, Chris) receive consistent praise; others are associated with poor outcomes. Suggests training or quality control gaps.
• CREDIT CARD SECURITY ISSUE: 2021 review documents unsafe practice of writing full credit card numbers on paper receipts—a serious compliance and security violation.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference unprofessional behavior by owner(s), including rudeness, dismissiveness of customer concerns, and failure to honor commitments. One 2009 review documents non-payment of contractor invoices.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2025) but significantly lower confidence for predicting future performance, given the company's documented history of systemic issues with pricing integrity, project completion, and communication spanning multiple years. The strong recent review trend is encouraging but does not fully offset the pattern of serious complaints in older reviews and the specific allegations of overcharging and aggressive sales tactics in 2025 reviews.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Pacific Coast Plumbing has a deeply split review profile spanning over a decade and what appears to be at least two distinct operational eras. Recent reviews (2024–2025), predominantly featuring a plumber named Adam, are overwhelmingly positive across all dimensions — describing punctuality, technical skill, fair pricing, and thorough job completion. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2015–2019 in particular) documents severe and repeated failures: chronic no-shows, missed appointments without notice, incomplete work, unresponsive office staff, and jobs left unfinished for weeks or months — many of these tied to home warranty company assignments. Pricing is generally praised when mentioned, but a handful of reviews cite unexpected charges or overpricing. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the volume and severity of abandonment and no-show complaints in the historical record. The experience dimension scores moderately well, as technical skill is praised in many reviews but undermined by documented cases of shoddy workmanship including leaks caused by the plumber, improper pipe slope, and repeated failed repair attempts.

• SEVERE OPERATIONAL SPLIT: Reviews from approximately 2015–2019 contain a high concentration of 1-star reviews describing systematic no-shows, abandoned jobs, and unresponsive staff — many linked to home warranty (AHS/First American) assignments. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING OR PERSONNEL CHANGE: Reviews from 2024–2025 almost exclusively feature 'Adam' and are uniformly positive, while older reviews reference different staff (Nick, Marco, Efrain, Henry, Elsa, Noelle, David/Dave, Ronnie). This may indicate a change in ownership, management, or operating territory.
• 14 BLANK REVIEWS WITH RATINGS ONLY: A total of 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (all 5-star or 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The 2024–2025 reviews are almost entirely 5-star with no negative feedback, which could reflect genuine improvement or a period of selective review solicitation. Confidence in the current operational quality is MODERATE despite HIGH mention count due to this concern.
• DOCUMENTED WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion (leaks recurred, pipes broke, improper slope causing backups, six sinks installed that all leaked). These are not mere complaints about service but documented quality failures.
• ONE REVIEW DESCRIBES POTENTIAL BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: A 1-star review from 2024 describes a plumber canceling a scheduled leak detection visit after learning the reviewer had someone else lined up for the reroute, suggesting selective job-taking based on profit potential.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several negative reviews reference the company being based in Santa Paula serving areas like Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo (2+ hours away), which may explain some of the chronic no-show patterns in that era. Recent positive reviews are concentrated in the Antelope Valley area, suggesting a possible relocation or territory change.

This WW Score of 72.4 should be treated with caution: while recent reviews (2024–2025) strongly suggest a capable and professional operation under Adam, the historical record contains too many severe, specific, and corroborated complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, and poor workmanship to be ignored — prospective customers should verify whether the current operation is genuinely reformed or restructured before committing to larger jobs.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.